Trailblazer
Veteran Member
In light of the fact that new religious laws have been revealed in recent times, a rational person should not be looking at what was written 2000 or 3000 years ago because it is not pertinent to the times we are living in.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does the Bible really say "homosexuals"?
- Thread starter thomas t
- Start date
-
- Tags
- greek hebrew homosexuality
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That's true, but I don't see any other reason to care.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I agree that there does not appear to be any other reason to care, but it is more than enough. If someone tried to use the Bible to affect my life I would fight against it so I can see why the LGBQ community would fight such prejudice. Oh, and their supporters which is why I fight it.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
But if it is no longer a sin in God's eyes that means that some things in the Bible are no longer pertinent to this age.
The Bible cannot be changed or added to, so how are people supposed to know God's will for this age?
Colt
Well-Known Member
Obviously since God creates gay people it never was a “sin”. The mores change over time, the scriptures reflect those changes.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You can fight against what is in the Bible or you can support those who no longer adhere to the Bible and are promoting a new religion that has new teachings and laws that are pertinent to this age. I admire you standing up for what you believe is right, but fighting against the Bible is a losing battle, as Christianity will have to fizzle out on its own, and it will in due time, just not within our lifetimes.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
How can the scriptures reflect those changes unless the scriptures can be changed?
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
It's not just a lifestyle of relationships, it's also a personality orientation of feminine mannerisms.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The word "lifestyle" is poorly chosen. And why criticize people for their mannerisms? Not all gays are feminine. I do not even see a point to that comment. Why make it?
Colt
Well-Known Member
Well, obviously a lot was added after Deuteronomy and we no longer practice many of the OT laws.
The Bible was written and rewritten by holy men, some more holy than others.
The Laws in Leviticus weren't about identity or other aspects of homosexuality. I used the word lifestyle because lifestyle isn't a negative term.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is quite often used in a derogatory fashion so I would disagree.
People's mannerisms aren't bad. There's a difference between being feminine and gender nonconforming. A woman can be very feminine and still be gender nonconforming.
Um hi. Gay person here.
"Lifestyle" is a popular term the Christian Right started using to push the notion that gayness is a choice. Gayness is not a "lifestyle." What you mean by "lifestyle" is simply, "me being openly who I am and not pretending I'm something else."
Near as I know, the closest the Bible comes to actually saying "homosexual" is in Paul's use of the Greek word ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites).; It seems to essentially mean "one who abuses oneself with a member of their own sex."
When you think about that, the notion of abuse means that one is somehow acting against one's own nature. But I do not think, however, that Paul -- or anyone else in the Biblical age and much longer afterward -- could have understood that as meaning anything like a person whose own nature was oriented so. When you understand human sexuality as being inextricably associated with the organs by which it is expressed, you can't have any notion of a "homosexual" the way we understand it today. It must, therefore, be considered an aberration -- a misuse of the the sexual faculty.
Today, we understand that the pre-eminent sex organ is neither the penis nor vagina, but the brain.
When you think about that, the notion of abuse means that one is somehow acting against one's own nature. But I do not think, however, that Paul -- or anyone else in the Biblical age and much longer afterward -- could have understood that as meaning anything like a person whose own nature was oriented so. When you understand human sexuality as being inextricably associated with the organs by which it is expressed, you can't have any notion of a "homosexual" the way we understand it today. It must, therefore, be considered an aberration -- a misuse of the the sexual faculty.
Today, we understand that the pre-eminent sex organ is neither the penis nor vagina, but the brain.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
How does that reflect upon the credibility of the Bible in its entirety, if the OT says nothing can be added and then the NT was added to the OT?
If the NT could be added as God's testimony after the OT was completed why couldn't another testimony from God be added after the NT was completed? Where in the NT does it say that God would never speak again? If God did speak again, would you want to know what He revealed?
Thanks, I did not know that it was written and rewritten. If these were just holy men who wrote it why do Christians believe that it is the Word of God? How could you possibly ever know that it came from God?
I used the term because I thought that it would help me make my point about how gay isn't just a term that refers to romantic relationships.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
I believe same-sex attraction and homosexual intercourse have been around for quite some time - possibly as long as humans have been around.
Are you arguing against the use of that word to describe this or if this had been going on prior to the 19th century?
I'm confused.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So you are trying to make the argument that the bible isn't against "homosexuals" and your "evidence" for that is that the word didn't exist until the 19th century?
Really? That's your case?
Be honest now, do you think this semantic argument really works to support the claim that the bible isn't against homosexuality?
Please..............................
This must be about the weakest excuse I've ever seen anyone make to try and make the bible look not anti-gay.
The bible is in fact pretty explicitly clear about what it thinks of 2 men having sex.
Let's not pretend as if having a (new) word for it changes that.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yup....
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.